For a proper comparison, also significant to note that JuiceFS is Apache-2.0 licensed while ZeroFS is dual AGPL-3.0/commercial licensed, significantly limiting the latter's ability to be easily adopted outside of open source projects.

▲

anonymousDan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would this matter if you're just using the database?

▲

Eikon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn’t, you are free to use ZeroFS for commercial and closed source products.

▲

wgjordan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This clarification is helpful, thanks! The README currently implies a slightly different take, perhaps it could be made more clear that it's suitable for use unmodified in closed source products:

> The AGPL license is suitable for open source projects, while commercial licenses are available for organizations requiring different terms.

I was a bit unclear on where the AGPL's network-interaction clause draws its boundaries- so the commercial license would only be needed for closed-source modifications/forks, or if statically linking ZeroFS crate into a larger proprietary Rust program, is that roughly it?

	▲	wgjordan 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also worth noting (as a sibling comment pointed out) that despite these assurances the untested legal risks of AGPL-licensed code may still cause difficulties for larger, risk-averse companies. Google notably has a blanket policy [1] banning all AGPL code entirely as "the risks outweigh the benefits", so large organizations are probably another area where the commercial license comes into play. [1] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
	▲	Eikon 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> so the commercial license would only be needed for closed-source modifications/forks Indeed.
	▲	andydang 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]